Also extremely short sample size, but he looked drunk in the playoffs. Hopefully that won't be a concern for them, though.

Oh, so he's the new Daneyko?

__________________

"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
I still think there should be a section of people at MSG behind the visiting bench, in curly wigs, and dark rimmed glasses, calling themselves the Pidtophiles. - Zamboner

Nah, this has just been building up for a while with a nubmer of posters on this board. Pretty obvious with how many have been involved in this debate today with you. At least all of the circular stuff is out in the open, now.

I thought Ail was joking around, but I can see he was right all along! You pick fights with pretty much every poster you disagree with.

Since this is basically 10 pages of Kershaw's backtracking and advanced metrics that prove nothing other than advanced stats don't work in hockey, I'm assuming the Rangers are planning on doing very little with FA/Trades this off-season? Might not be the worst way to go.

Any chance they take a look at Ballard? Despite the Canuck fans' idea that AV hated him, if they really do intend on looking into a Staal/Del Zotto trade, it might make some sense. Any other defenders out there worth looking out? Roszy again?

I have tons of disagreements with people. I hardly ever call them out like this though, because simple disagreements do not warrant such.

Not really, I see it just last week with a poster talking about Rundblad or some other prospect. Ail is definitely right, you carry this sense of entitlement and superiority and cause other posters to drive away from this website. You can have the last word, I am done here.

Not really, I see it just last week with a poster talking about Rundblad or some other prospect. Ail is definitely right, you carry this sense of entitlement and superiority and cause other posters to drive away from this website. You can have the last word, I am done here.

Actually, I merely argued with him after I felt he was disrespectful towards me. But keep pretending that I "carry this sense of entitlement and superiority and cause other posters to drive away from this website."

Actually, I merely argued with him after I felt he was disrespectful towards me. But keep pretending that I "carry this sense of entitlement and superiority and cause other posters to drive away from this website."

You're such a dick.

I'd much rather deal with people who dislike 98% of the organizations moves, and show absolutely no willingness to look at things objectively, even if they are proven wrong.

It sure seems like it. This organization has very little clue on what they're doing for the future IMO. An example is the Nash/Gaborik swap. Let's trade for Nash, we need more scoring. Derp, now we don't have any depth in place, let's move Gaborik to get that depth. Yay we finally have depth now, but wait, we still can't score in the playoffs. Let's move more depth for Bobby Ryan/Thomas Vanek. Wash, rinse, repeat. The true problem with the roster is the lack of an elite defenseman and sub-par center depth.

And the trades and FA signings that Sather has made in his tenure have largely been disasters and haven't work. When is enough, enough? If you keep failing at that, why keep doing it?

So you think it's largely the players' faults that the FA signings didn't work? No accountability is given to the man and his pro scouts who constantly hire these suddenly declining players?

This is perfect example of revisionist history. There was no Nash/Gaborik “swap”. Nash was acquired to supplement Gaborik a move largely seen as a win for the NYR but not you. You know Gaborik was moved for cap reasons along with his struggles so why skew it as misdirection of management? How could management know about the forthcoming implications of a lower cap, lockout, shortened season when they traded for Nash?

So your solution is stop making trades and signing free agents? Sure they all haven’t worked out, but disasters? not quite.
Again if you’re coming to the conclusion that this is a “failed method” then you won’t be pleased with anything less than a full
grassroots rebuild, where we finish last for “X” years in an attempt to draft generational talent, which will take an additional “X” amount of years to develop and integrate into a core of non existent players that you would blow out of the organization.

IMO nothing short of the above would please you so you continue to kick S### at every move the org. makes at every level. Look at your avatar caption. coincidence? look at the way you dog Krieder after such a small sampling of NHL play. You “follow” this team it seems to mock and deride them at the expense of other posters here.

I do think that management could see a lockout shortened season (or canceled season) when they picked up Nash. If not, they were not paying attention. Although I don't think Kershaw mentioned that at all as part of his anti-Rangers rant, I feel it necessary to offer the contrary to your post, Nik.

This team hasn't really been close to winning the cup with Hank in his peak years with the exception of 1 season in 9 years. With Glen Sather's inability to construct a roster, I don't see this team winning a cup with him. You are correct, the team would get much worse without Hank, which might be a good thing..... I'd much rather roll the dice with a young, offensively-potent Yakupov and tank for top picks to surround him. I'm getting tired of Hank and non-elite, overpaid garbage FA retreads/trades.

This is perfect example of revisionist history. There was no Nash/Gaborik “swap”. Nash was acquired to supplement Gaborik a move largely seen as a win for the NYR but not you. You know Gaborik was moved for cap reasons along with his struggles so why skew it as misdirection of management? How could management know about the forthcoming implications of a lower cap, lockout, shortened season when they traded for Nash?

It was seen as a bad move because Rick Nash is not the type of player you gut your team's depth for, just as with Gaborik. Sather after many years at the helm still doesn't get it. You don't give up top quality assets for good, but non-elite wingers on large cap hit contracts. And I've been echoing those sentiments well before he was traded here. Just take a look at the dozen of Nash discussion threads on the trade sections of the boards, constantly defending the Rangers players offered in trade proposals.

Quote:

So your solution is stop making trades and signing free agents? Sure they all haven’t worked out, but disasters? not quite.
Again if you’re coming to the conclusion that this is a “failed method” then you won’t be pleased with anything less than a full
grassroots rebuild, where we finish last for “X” years in an attempt to draft generational talent, which will take an additional “X” amount of years to develop and integrate into a core of non existent players that you would blow out of the organization.

Yes, I would definitely prefer that route instead. And no, I didn't say completely ignore trades and free agent signings. I said to avoid the big contract ones like the Gomezs Drurys Reddens Holiks Gaboriks and Nashs of the worlds. That is simply not a sustainable method of building top end talent through free agency. Sure it can work at times, but the bulk of elite players in today's league are usually top picks from respective rosters.

Quote:

IMO nothing short of the above would please you so you continue to kick S### at every move the org. makes at every level. Look at your avatar caption. coincidence? look at the way you dog Krieder after such a small sampling of NHL play. You “follow” this team it seems to mock and deride them at the expense of other posters here.

Haha this can't be any further from the truth, but somehow it is. Ive constantly defended many players on this roster, so by no means do I hate everything in this organization. Just look at the Stepan thread in late January when everyone was completely tearing into him or even the end of season Lundqvist, Torts, Boyle Girardi, Boyle and MDZ threads.

There were plenty of people who speculated, at the time, that Nash was brought in because he was a better fit for Gaborik's spot in the lineup than Gaborik was.

speculation is fine, but to make a case in retrospect, is pure hindsight, and that's what i think mr.kershaw is guilty of quite frequently...

Nash was brought in to be another scoring threat alongside Gaborik.
I'm sure NYR management didn't see the cap dropping to 63m this year. i think they envisioned keeping Gabs, and maybe resigning him when his contract was up at lesser $$$....

speculation is fine, but to make a case in retrospect, is pure hindsight, and that's what i think mr.kershaw is guilty of quite frequently...

Nash was brought in to be another scoring threat alongside Gaborik.
I'm sure NYR management didn't see the cap dropping to 63m this year. i think they envisioned keeping Gabs, and maybe resigning him when his contract was up at lesser $$$....

No. Here are my posts in the following threads, notice the post dates. I was never a Nash fan and didn't want him traded to the Rangers.